UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JOANNE BAKER,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00143

v. Judge George C. Smith 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Motion for Remand. 

(ECF No. 14.) In the Stipulation, the parties request a remand to the Commissioner of Social

Security (“Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court

may, upon motion consideration of the pleadings and the transcript, affirm, modify, or reverse

the Commissioner’s decision “with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g).

Here, the parties stipulate that remand is necessary to allow the Administrative Law

Judge to further develop the record. Specifically, the parties state that the Administrative Law

Judge will reevaluate the medical opinions of record, reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional

capacity, and reconsider whether Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work or other jobs

which exist in significant numbers in the national economy. (ECF No. 14, at 1.) The parties

further stipulate that the Administrative Law Judge will obtain testimony from a vocational

expert, if necessary. Id. 

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be

Case: 2:12-cv-00143-GCS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/12/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
GRANTED and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings and a

new decision. 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994

(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the

issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00143-GCS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/12/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 12, 2012 /s/ Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 Elizabeth P. Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00143-GCS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/12/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>